The 2010 earthquake in Haiti and its aftermath have highlighted inherent but understudied transnational governance and socio-legal complexities of disaster recovery and displacement. This paper examines the key transnational governance and socio-legal issues that have arisen in the South Florida region for four distinct groups: (i) displacees and their related legal, social, cultural, and economic issues; (ii) host communities and governance, legal, and monetary complexities associated with compensation payments (e.g., to hospitals for their services to earthquake survivors); (iii) immigrants within the United States and related legalization and citizenship issues; and (iv) diaspora communities and socio-legal issues related to dual citizenship and their ongoing struggles to have a louder voice in the future of Haiti.
Argues that the historical boycott of Haiti's government in the 19th and 20th centuries by the international community, the constant internal struggle among the members of the elite for the control of state power, and the weakening of state structures through the creation of nongovernmental organizations have weakened the government's capacity to deal with major catastrophe and meet the needs of its citizens.
Discusses the importance of US leadership in the reconstruction of Haiti in the wake of the devastating earthquake. Attention is given to unity of effort & the primacy of security in Haiti.
Examines the sources of domestic political will for intervention, particularly the role of partisanship, ideology, and public opinion on Congressional members' willingness to support US intervention for humanitarian purposes. Analyzes several Congressional votes relevant to four episodes of US humanitarian intervention: Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Finds that public support for humanitarian intervention increases Congressional support and that other political demands, primarily partisanship and ideological distance from the president, often trump the normative exigencies of intervention.
